Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

That's just what I was about to say.

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical.

Alright. And? And I'm pretty you're using "metaphysical" in a fairly idiosyncratic way in order to bolster you "point".

To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Ok.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence.

No it isn't.

In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be?

Faith is of no value anyways.

The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence.

This stupid.

In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

Reason > faith

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

At 6/3/2012 1:29:12 AM, YYW wrote:I am overwhelmed by the intellectual rigor of the various responses which have followed by -admittedly provocative- post.

I'm not sure what you expected given the amount of intellectual rigor you put into the original post.

I expected nothing. I expected this thread to fade into the annals of DDO's past. I was disappointed though, by what was offered in response. No attempt to refute. No attempt to rebut. Just a load of sh!t. Nothing would have been better. But I do, for various reasons, get irritated when I see people rehash the same load of sh!t over and over again. It is a pity that among the members here I am inclined to find all the virtues I hate and none of the vices I admire -but for a select few. They know who they are.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

Well if we can show the existence of God is more probable than the inclinations are huge. That would mean there is a creator of the universe who has more power than we could imagine and loves us more than we could know. The inclinations are huge. The bible itself tells us to "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," Reason does not cheapen faith.

Nothing wrong with debating, whether it be God's existence or any other subject (it sharpens the mind). God's existence is probably the biggest topic one would could debate however, which makes it more worthy of debate in my opinion.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

First, only a Calvinist would post this. Am I close?Second, I have to agree with Popculture.

Your entire post presupposes that God's existence need be proven through an empirical process. This is not what Theologians do. God is proven through an evidentiary line via philosophical processes, metaphysical processes, abstract processes, indirect physical processes (Testimony of interaction, divine institution of the church) and even via your own personal experiential confirmation.

As God is not a physical being, we do not try to prove he exists as a physical being. Due to Jesus being physical we do present empirically verifiable evidence for His personhood. That does not mean we point to the divine essence of the Trinity via Jesus' physical existence.

Summary:Arguing about God's physical existence is perhaps temporally limited in discussions of the reality of God's physical advent in Jesus. Not idiotic.

It is a huge misunderstanding to claim Theologians are attempting to empirically prove God's non-physical nature via empiricism. That is not what they do.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

I'll bite. Can we empirically prove that God does *not* exist?

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

First, only a Calvinist would post this. Am I close?

No, and by the look of your post this is going to be entertaining. (Be careful throwing around terminology, labels, etc.)

One of the many things about what people do on this site is when they try to identify inferences that cannot be cohesively drawn from information given. This would be a brilliant example of just such an occurrence. My entire post presupposes nothing, and even if it did the LAST thing it would presuppose is that God's existence needs to be proven empirically. The whole point of the post is that God's existence DOES NOT need to be proven, and even if it did, proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

This is not what Theologians do.

What a keen observation you have made there.

God is proven through an evidentiary line via philosophical processes, metaphysical processes, abstract processes, indirect physical processes (Testimony of interaction, divine institution of the church) and even via your own personal experiential confirmation.

That is just hilarious. God isn't "proven." God is believed in. We have faith that he exists.

As God is not a physical being, we do not try to prove he exists as a physical being. Due to Jesus being physical we do present empirically verifiable evidence for His personhood. That does not mean we point to the divine essence of the Trinity via Jesus' physical existence.

And your point?

Summary:Arguing about God's physical existence is perhaps temporally limited in discussions of the reality of God's physical advent in Jesus. Not idiotic.

And now we're just arguing about the proper way to pronounce tomato.

It is a huge misunderstanding to claim Theologians are attempting to empirically prove God's non-physical nature via empiricism. That is not what they do.

I love the way you have completely misunderstood my post. Go along now so that you may try to prove me wrong.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

I'll bite. Can we empirically prove that God does *not* exist?

Ahh, yes. I love to able to prove double negatives, almost as much as I love to divide by 0.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

So, the people in the Bible who are alleged to have had direct contact with God (Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus, etc.) did not have empirical evidence for the metaphysical and had no faith of any value?

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

First, only a Calvinist would post this. Am I close?

No, and by the look of your post this is going to be entertaining. (Be careful throwing around terminology, labels, etc.)

I was stunned that I might have my intuition fail me. I then clicked on your personal information. You are of the Presbyterian denomination. Perhaps you are unaware of what a Calvinist is? Presbyterians are the calvinist/reformed denomination to one degree or another.

One of the many things about what people do on this site is when they try to identify inferences that cannot be cohesively drawn from information given. This would be a brilliant example of just such an occurrence. My entire post presupposes nothing, and even if it did the LAST thing it would presuppose is that God's existence needs to be proven empirically. The whole point of the post is that God's existence DOES NOT need to be proven, and even if it did, proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

1: Yes it did presuppose the need. Hence the title and every statement that followed. If you meant something else you will need to work on your communication skills.

2:

The whole point of the post is that God's existence DOES NOT need to be proven, and even if it did, proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

So you are presupposing God's existence does not need to be proven. This is summarily false as nearly every human has the pursuit of the question apparently 'programmed' into their very existence.

As to:

proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

This appears to be just a patently false statement based upon a personal definition of 'faith'.

This is not what Theologians do.

What a keen observation you have made there.

I think you are keen too!

God is proven through an evidentiary line via philosophical processes, metaphysical processes, abstract processes, indirect physical processes (Testimony of interaction, divine institution of the church) and even via your own personal experiential confirmation.

That is just hilarious. God isn't "proven." God is believed in. We have faith that he exists.

What you are defining in the theology is called blind faith, which is distinct from Biblical faith.Blind faith is believing in something for no reason.Biblical faith is trusting in God's future unseen promises due to all of the past promises He has come through on. Same as trusting your mother is not going to kill you on the next family visit is based upon your knowledge of her past actions.

As God is not a physical being, we do not try to prove he exists as a physical being. Due to Jesus being physical we do present empirically verifiable evidence for His personhood. That does not mean we point to the divine essence of the Trinity via Jesus' physical existence.

And your point?

Good question. Though I thought the point was made ridiculously clear. The point is that Christianity does not argue or present evidence for God's physical existence but His non-physical existence. Thus the vast majority of Theological Scholars do provide evidence for God's existence and argue for just that. It is a practice of scholasticism and not idiocy, thus I am contending your OP and forum title is false.

Summary:Arguing about God's physical existence is perhaps temporally limited in discussions of the reality of God's physical advent in Jesus. Not idiotic.

It is a huge misunderstanding to claim Theologians are attempting to empirically prove God's non-physical nature via empiricism. That is not what they do.

I love the way you have completely misunderstood my post. Go along now so that you may try to prove me wrong.

I think you should slow down, read how your post read, then reread my response. Spend sometime digesting before responding.You could also just state a syllogism or step by step base/simple conceptual oultine of what you are trying to say. In communication skills training (corporate emails etc) it is what they suggest to be an effective communicator. Even if you do the layout in your head as you write the email, everything should flow from that simple statements outline.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

First, only a Calvinist would post this. Am I close?

No, and by the look of your post this is going to be entertaining. (Be careful throwing around terminology, labels, etc.)

I was stunned that I might have my intuition fail me. I then clicked on your personal information. You are of the Presbyterian denomination. Perhaps you are unaware of what a Calvinist is? Presbyterians are the calvinist/reformed denomination to one degree or another.

Lol... I'm sure it happened in that order. Recognize that the statement I made has nothing to do with theology, any specific religious doctrine, etc. By contrast, you attempted to explain away the statement I made by affixing to it a particular bias that I may or may not have. What I believe, personally, is irrelevant to the discussion. You're having brought it into the discussion beckons red herrings. And worse? Rather than actually address the point I made, you now want to question my own familiarity with my own faith? You must be a good christian. I'm betting you're a southern Baptist.

One of the many things about what people do on this site is when they try to identify inferences that cannot be cohesively drawn from information given. This would be a brilliant example of just such an occurrence. My entire post presupposes nothing, and even if it did the LAST thing it would presuppose is that God's existence needs to be proven empirically. The whole point of the post is that God's existence DOES NOT need to be proven, and even if it did, proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

1: Yes it did presuppose the need. Hence the title and every statement that followed. If you meant something else you will need to work on your communication skills.

I really hate to just summarily declare that someone is or isn't cognitively inept, but in your case I'll make an exception. At this point, further discussion is futile.

2:

The whole point of the post is that God's existence DOES NOT need to be proven, and even if it did, proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

So you are presupposing God's existence does not need to be proven. This is summarily false as nearly every human has the pursuit of the question apparently 'programmed' into their very existence.

This is not going to turn into a debate about predestination. I'm even more convinced, now, that you are a southern baptist.

As to:

proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

This appears to be just a patently false statement based upon a personal definition of 'faith'.

This is not what Theologians do.

What a keen observation you have made there.

I think you are keen too!

I really don't care.

God is proven through an evidentiary line via philosophical processes, metaphysical processes, abstract processes, indirect physical processes (Testimony of interaction, divine institution of the church) and even via your own personal experiential confirmation.

That is just hilarious. God isn't "proven." God is believed in. We have faith that he exists.

What you are defining in the theology is called blind faith, which is distinct from Biblical faith.Blind faith is believing in something for no reason.Biblical faith is trusting in God's future unseen promises due to all of the past promises He has come through on. Same as trusting your mother is not going to kill you on the next family visit is based upon your knowledge of her past actions.

Yep... and an ignorant southern baptist at that.

As God is not a physical being, we do not try to prove he exists as a physical being. Due to Jesus being physical we do present empirically verifiable evidence for His personhood. That does not mean we point to the divine essence of the Trinity via Jesus' physical existence.

And your point?

Good question. Though I thought the point was made ridiculously clear. The point is that Christianity does not argue or present evidence for God's physical existence but His non-physical existence. Thus the vast majority of Theological Scholars do provide evidence for God's existence and argue for just that. It is a practice of scholasticism and not idiocy, thus I am contending your OP and forum title is false.

Summary:Arguing about God's physical existence is perhaps temporally limited in discussions of the reality of God's physical advent in Jesus. Not idiotic.

It is a huge misunderstanding to claim Theologians are attempting to empirically prove God's non-physical nature via empiricism. That is not what they do.

I love the way you have completely misunderstood my post. Go along now so that you may try to prove me wrong.

I think you should slow down, read how your post read, then reread my response. Spend sometime digesting before responding.You could also just state a syllogism or step by step base/simple conceptual oultine of what you are trying to say. In communication skills training (corporate emails etc) it is what they suggest to be an effective communicator. Even if you do the layout in your head as you write the email, everything should flow from that simple statements outline.

I wish I could point out to you how ironic it is that you are preaching to me about communication skills, but given that we don't know each other personally, it would be of no use.

Call this a cop-out or whatever you like. There is nothing more for me to say to you.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

At 6/3/2012 1:13:40 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:Do you think a court of Law can>?

Yes. The existence of God was upheld when a man tried to sue Him, but the case was thrown out because there was no way to locate God.

I only wish that was a joke.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

Anselm say that ours is a faith seeking understanding. Insofar as theism is reasonable, then it's high preference can be entertained.

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

First, only a Calvinist would post this. Am I close?

No, and by the look of your post this is going to be entertaining. (Be careful throwing around terminology, labels, etc.)

I was stunned that I might have my intuition fail me. I then clicked on your personal information. You are of the Presbyterian denomination. Perhaps you are unaware of what a Calvinist is? Presbyterians are the calvinist/reformed denomination to one degree or another.

Lol... I'm sure it happened in that order. Recognize that the statement I made has nothing to do with theology, any specific religious doctrine, etc. By contrast, you attempted to explain away the statement I made by affixing to it a particular bias that I may or may not have. What I believe, personally, is irrelevant to the discussion. You're having brought it into the discussion beckons red herrings. And worse? Rather than actually address the point I made, you now want to question my own familiarity with my own faith? You must be a good christian. I'm betting you're a southern Baptist.

Wow. Called me a liar then did not say I was wrong. I see Jesus is strong in you.Reformed/Calvinist is the only Christian subset that would hold this concept. It also in general denies reason, cognitive abilities and interpretation for the preference of faith as Total depravity precludes a persons abilities to 'find' God.

Notice no one else posts such things. If it was a deductive conclusion without merit, and I was wrong you are not reformed/calvinist, I apologize

One of the many things about what people do on this site is when they try to identify inferences that cannot be cohesively drawn from information given. This would be a brilliant example of just such an occurrence. My entire post presupposes nothing, and even if it did the LAST thing it would presuppose is that God's existence needs to be proven empirically. The whole point of the post is that God's existence DOES NOT need to be proven, and even if it did, proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

1: Yes it did presuppose the need. Hence the title and every statement that followed. If you meant something else you will need to work on your communication skills.

I really hate to just summarily declare that someone is or isn't cognitively inept, but in your case I'll make an exception. At this point, further discussion is futile.

This is a typical tactic to use fallacious ad hominems upon a persons education and intelligence when you are unable to refute their actual line of reasoning within a discussion. You do this throughout your post.

So you are presupposing God's existence does not need to be proven. This is summarily false as nearly every human has the pursuit of the question apparently 'programmed' into their very existence.

This is not going to turn into a debate about predestination. I'm even more convinced, now, that you are a southern baptist.

I will address my theology at the bottom. Predestination does not apply here. The nature of man needing to answer the question 'Does God exist' appears by God's design, thus invalidating your OP. "Arguing about God's existence is idioic". This is a self evident refutation of your assertion.

God is proven through an evidentiary line via philosophical processes, metaphysical processes, abstract processes, indirect physical processes (Testimony of interaction, divine institution of the church) and even via your own personal experiential confirmation.

That is just hilarious. God isn't "proven." God is believed in. We have faith that he exists.

What you are defining in the theology is called blind faith, which is distinct from Biblical faith.Blind faith is believing in something for no reason.Biblical faith is trusting in God's future unseen promises due to all of the past promises He has come through on. Same as trusting your mother is not going to kill you on the next family visit is based upon your knowledge of her past actions.

Yep... and an ignorant southern baptist at that.

I was saved and trained in a Calvinist Church in Boston MA, out of Gordon Cromwell Seminary.I was trained in RCC, Greek Orthodox, Anglican Theology by the Salvation Army in Philadelphia PA.I received a BA in Theology from a Southern Baptist Seminary in GA.I currently am a Soldier within the Salvation Army and hold to various Arminian, Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican doctrines. All of the mainstream traditional understanding of the Christian faith.

It is a huge misunderstanding to claim Theologians are attempting to empirically prove God's non-physical nature via empiricism. That is not what they do.

I love the way you have completely misunderstood my post. Go along now so that you may try to prove me wrong.

I think you should slow down, read how your post read, then reread my response. Spend sometime digesting before responding.You could also just state a syllogism or step by step base/simple conceptual oultine of what you are trying to say. In communication skills training (corporate emails etc) it is what they suggest to be an effective communicator. Even if you do the layout in your head as you write the email, everything should flow from that simple statements outline.

I wish I could point out to you how ironic it is that you are preaching to me about communication skills, but given that we don't know each other personally, it would be of no use.

Call this a cop-out or whatever you like. There is nothing more for me to say to you.

As I stated, while apologizing about giving unsolicited guidance, humor my low intellect and low reading comprehension skills, by laying out what you 'meant' with a syllogism or a 1.2.3 basic points as written to a 15 year old.

It would go a long distance toward my comprehending how I misunderstood your Forum title and OP.

I completely agree that arguing over the existence or nonexistence of deity is useless, due to the lack of proof on either side. When you get down to it, the only justifiable side (looking at it proof-wise) is Weak Athiesm, and it only really wins by default. Really, the factor that influences the belief in any deity, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, Voltar, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is faith. With faith, everyday things become acts of divine inspiration and the belief in a deity is easy. Without faith, you can look around and see the lack of evidence, and the disbelief of a deity is easy.

That being said, despite its uselessness, I support debating it on sites like this. If only because it provides practice and gives me the hope that the face-to-face arguments that will un-avoidably happen will sound a little less idiotic :P

At 6/3/2012 1:09:29 AM, YYW wrote:Arguing about wether or not God exists is idiotic. Gödel's attempt is laudable, but ultimately insufficient, for reasons that I don't feel especially occasioned to explain. (I refuse to teach symbolic logic over the internet. Nevertheless, behold, Gödel in his magnificent futility: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof)

Let me preempt the chorus of fools:But YYW, how dare you make a claim and refuse to substantiate it!

Now that that's taken care of...

The existence of God cannot be proven empirically. We cannot empirically prove the metaphysical. To argue to the contrary is to commit an act of egregious intellectual dishonesty at best, or to lie to the self at worst.

Even if the existence of God could be proven, of what value would faith be? The whole idea of having faith is to believe without seeing, to accept without evidence. In that regard, to try to "prove" that God exists is to cheapen individual faith. It is to reduce faith to reason.

First, only a Calvinist would post this. Am I close?

No, and by the look of your post this is going to be entertaining. (Be careful throwing around terminology, labels, etc.)

I was stunned that I might have my intuition fail me. I then clicked on your personal information. You are of the Presbyterian denomination. Perhaps you are unaware of what a Calvinist is? Presbyterians are the calvinist/reformed denomination to one degree or another.

Lol... I'm sure it happened in that order. Recognize that the statement I made has nothing to do with theology, any specific religious doctrine, etc. By contrast, you attempted to explain away the statement I made by affixing to it a particular bias that I may or may not have. What I believe, personally, is irrelevant to the discussion. You're having brought it into the discussion beckons red herrings. And worse? Rather than actually address the point I made, you now want to question my own familiarity with my own faith? You must be a good christian. I'm betting you're a southern Baptist.

Wow. Called me a liar then did not say I was wrong. I see Jesus is strong in you.Reformed/Calvinist is the only Christian subset that would hold this concept. It also in general denies reason, cognitive abilities and interpretation for the preference of faith as Total depravity precludes a persons abilities to 'find' God.

Notice no one else posts such things. If it was a deductive conclusion without merit, and I was wrong you are not reformed/calvinist, I apologize

One of the many things about what people do on this site is when they try to identify inferences that cannot be cohesively drawn from information given. This would be a brilliant example of just such an occurrence. My entire post presupposes nothing, and even if it did the LAST thing it would presuppose is that God's existence needs to be proven empirically. The whole point of the post is that God's existence DOES NOT need to be proven, and even if it did, proving God's existence would erode the basis of faith.

1: Yes it did presuppose the need. Hence the title and every statement that followed. If you meant something else you will need to work on your communication skills.

I really hate to just summarily declare that someone is or isn't cognitively inept, but in your case I'll make an exception. At this point, further discussion is futile.

This is a typical tactic to use fallacious ad hominems upon a persons education and intelligence when you are unable to refute their actual line of reasoning within a discussion. You do this throughout your post.

So you are presupposing God's existence does not need to be proven. This is summarily false as nearly every human has the pursuit of the question apparently 'programmed' into their very existence.

This is not going to turn into a debate about predestination. I'm even more convinced, now, that you are a southern baptist.

I will address my theology at the bottom. Predestination does not apply here. The nature of man needing to answer the question 'Does God exist' appears by God's design, thus invalidating your OP. "Arguing about God's existence is idioic". This is a self evident refutation of your assertion.

God is proven through an evidentiary line via philosophical processes, metaphysical processes, abstract processes, indirect physical processes (Testimony of interaction, divine institution of the church) and even via your own personal experiential confirmation.

That is just hilarious. God isn't "proven." God is believed in. We have faith that he exists.

What you are defining in the theology is called blind faith, which is distinct from Biblical faith.Blind faith is believing in something for no reason.Biblical faith is trusting in God's future unseen promises due to all of the past promises He has come through on. Same as trusting your mother is not going to kill you on the next family visit is based upon your knowledge of her past actions.

Yep... and an ignorant southern baptist at that.

I was saved and trained in a Calvinist Church in Boston MA, out of Gordon Cromwell Seminary.I was trained in RCC, Greek Orthodox, Anglican Theology by the Salvation Army in Philadelphia PA.I received a BA in Theology from a Southern Baptist Seminary in GA.I currently am a Soldier within the Salvation Army and hold to various Arminian, Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican doctrines. All of the mainstream traditional understanding of the Christian faith.

It is a huge misunderstanding to claim Theologians are attempting to empirically prove God's non-physical nature via empiricism. That is not what they do.

I love the way you have completely misunderstood my post. Go along now so that you may try to prove me wrong.

I think you should slow down, read how your post read, then reread my response. Spend sometime digesting before responding.You could also just state a syllogism or step by step base/simple conceptual oultine of what you are trying to say. In communication skills training (corporate emails etc) it is what they suggest to be an effective communicator. Even if you do the layout in your head as you write the email, everything should flow from that simple statements outline.

I wish I could point out to you how ironic it is that you are preaching to me about communication skills, but given that we don't know each other personally, it would be of no use.

Call this a cop-out or whatever you like. There is nothing more for me to say to you.

As I stated, while apologizing about giving unsolicited guidance, humor my low intellect and low reading comprehension skills, by laying out what you 'meant' with a syllogism or a 1.2.3 basic points as written to a 15 year old.

It would go a long distance toward my comprehending how I misunderstood your Forum title and OP.

So in addition to being an idiot, you're also a condescending idiot. Yep. You're a southern baptist.